Dad can ignore and not even show up as he has not given anything to son till divorce. The couple (including wife) benefited by living in the house during Marriage. There is really no case here, except paying rent using marital assets (legal)
What financial moves can we make prior to marriage to have a 'you keep what you earn marriage'
301 - 320 of 333 Posts
Not every woman is going to go along with the. Maybe she wants to be a homeowner.
Joined
·
1,669 Posts
Yes, actually they do depending on the judge. Only assets at time of divorce unless there are assets being hidden/laundered through some scheme one party is not privy to. What you're describing is laundering the son's assets through a rental agreement with the parent. And the home is mortgaged, not fully owned by the Dad? Well that will complicate things when its time to gift it to the son.
And guess who's paying for all that investigation during divorce? You are. Let's say that the home is $240,000, with a 30 year mortgage at 4.5% and 20% down. Your marriage lasts 5 years. Typical rent on a property like that is about $2k/month. That's $120k you paid to Dad in rent. In that 5 years, Dad paid $20k in principal and ~$46k in interest. The other $54k is Dad's income. How much of that are you expecting back? If Dad doesn't charge you fair market value rent, or puts that profit back into the house equity in an unusual way, that's going to raise a whole new set of questions for your ex's legal investigators. By trying to pull this stunt you could very well cost yourself $90k in legal/accounting fees during your divorce as they try to unspool any scheme you've put together. That's whether what you did was ultimately legal or not. That's during the divorce. 3 years later when Dad tries to transfer the home to son, and new legal troubles could arise. Especially if deposition testimony denied any such plans.
Look. You're looking for silver bullets that just aren't there. Prenups, and postnups with full disclosure are your best tools for avoiding a long litigious divorce.
Joined
·
1,669 Posts
Dad can't dodge the deposition. Not without facing contempt himself.
I don't understand your logic here, the son is getting full and sole benefit of home price appreciation + equity AND he is removing $120K from marital property. The argument about deposition is not valid, you don't need to answer hypothetical questions like future gifts to children, nor do you need to abide by any disclosure you made years ago. There is really no case 3 years later. Its not a silver bullet, the law has vested full authority to either partner in the marriage to use marital assets as they see fit during a marriage
Like any other landlord, he is an un-related third party. As long as lease document is legal, there is no case here
Its not laundering, both parties are aware of rental agreement and have signed up for it. There is no scheme, the home is a future gift
Joined
·
1,669 Posts
No. The son is a renter. The Dad is getting the full benefit of rental income, appreciation, and equity. The son is paying $120k in rent. To say that that is removing it from marital property isn't exactly true. Why? Because the full $120k no longer exists. $46k of it is lost to mortgage interest. $10k(ish) to property taxes. $4k to insurance. That's $60k right there, or half. Is your intent to safeguard your money, or is it just to spite your spouse? Of the remaining $60k, only $20k will be coming back to the son with the house in the form of the equity portion of the mortgage payments. The other $40k is either still part of Dad's estate, or lost to the IRS in Dad's income tax from rental income. So you're paying $120k to get back $20k, plus <$40k in some separate future transfer. Say 3 more years of gifts under $15k to stay under the tax exempt gift level. Is that better than the son having bought the house initially?
Now the gift transfer. Dad may have tax liability on that gift. Depending on the size of Dad's estate, it could affect future gift ability, or estate taxes upon Dad's death. As far as the equity, in general on a gift of this type the basis on home price for the son will be the price Dad paid and not the FMV of the property at the time of gift while the gift amount deducted from Dad's estate will be the current FMV of the property. Which means that that equity may cause the son to pay higher capital gains tax on its future sale.
So in the end you are left with less than half of what you were shuffling off to Dad. Dad has probably lost money on the deal if he's returning the rental income. Son is probably on the hook for higher capital gains on the house.
And of course all of that is without taking into account the effect this type of move on the divorce itself. A contested divorce can be amazingly expensive. For a move like this to make any sense at all, your financial benefit has to outweigh the additional cost to litigate it in the divorce. You could very easily see yourself facing an $80k legal bill after the lawyers and accountants get done, all to "save" $60k. Is it still worth it? When instead of this scheme, you could have had a clear prenup and a less contentious and less expensive divorce?
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
What if - horror of horrors I know - the son doesn't divorce? What if he decides NOT to cheat on his wife and they stay together? He just pays rent to his father for... ever?
Joined
·
305 Posts
In the US assets aquired prior to marriage remain yours (separate property) so long as you do not co mingle them Inheritence is yours so long as you do not co mingle them. Unfortunately often times people co mingle their assets and it can then become considered marital property but in general those two principles are true. As an example you inherit 100,000 dollars from your mom or dad upon their death while you are married. You put that money into a bank account or mutual fund in your name only and it is separate property. Dump it into a joint account with your spouses name and it could be considered marital property and subject to division upon divorce.
For most people a prenuprial agreement serves three purposes:
1) Defining clearly your assets (and liabilities) coming into marriage
2) Specifying separate property earned during marriage and how that will be handled in event of divorce
3) Setting a standard for spousal support
There are of course other considerations depending upon your circumstances but these are the important consideration for many people.
Not really sure I understand your rental analogy but if a couple rents a home its a rental irregardless who it is being rented from. If the home is later gifted to a child after a divorce there is probably no issue there. Too many hypotheticals for me. Sorry I got involved in this!!
For most people a prenuprial agreement serves three purposes:
1) Defining clearly your assets (and liabilities) coming into marriage
2) Specifying separate property earned during marriage and how that will be handled in event of divorce
3) Setting a standard for spousal support
There are of course other considerations depending upon your circumstances but these are the important consideration for many people.
Not really sure I understand your rental analogy but if a couple rents a home its a rental irregardless who it is being rented from. If the home is later gifted to a child after a divorce there is probably no issue there. Too many hypotheticals for me. Sorry I got involved in this!!
In a way, paying the father rent will likely come back to him if his father passes on.
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
Wouldn't it be better to just never marry? Since women are the root of all evil.
Rent or buy is about the same.
Men pay and pay.
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
That's what I've been saying! They can just hire housekeepers and hookers. You guys don't feel any emotional connection to women anyway, why establish a financial connection to them?
None of us have said that, but your position is that, unless men are supplicants they hate women.
There really is nothing to discuss if that's your position.
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
I've never said that, so you made that "position" up in your head.
You however have said straight out that women should be supplicants. But that isn't what this thread is about, it's weirdly about marrying women you hate and then lying about your money so WHEN you divorce them you can keep from having to pay child support.
You just did.
All I said was that him paying rent will come back to him should his father pass on.
You treated my simple statement as if I was saying that it was only for him.
Did you want me to write my answers in multi-paragraph form, with all kinds of sub-paragraphs and annotations and sub-points to cover all possible points that you might object to?
I can't help that you're believe that men want women in birth camps, only to give birth to children.
I'm not the only one here concerned about your mental health.
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
Yeah, this didn't happen. But keep telling yourself it's MY mental health that is a "concern" for you. And these unnamed others. 😂
I'm not the only one noticing what you are saying is beyond the rationale.
Joined
·
4,486 Posts
I see. So all the other posters who are saying this guy burying money in the yard to hide it from the judge so it won't be considered for child support, are they also saying what I'm saying is beyond rationale? All the other posters, 10 pages of it, agreeing that this person is taking the notion of a pre-nup, something I wholly support, beyond what is legal and is openly advocating for hiding assets in anticipation of what he sees as an inevitable divorce, ALL those other people who agree with me, they're saying that too? Tell me, are they in the room with you right now?
Quote EXACTLY what I said that is "beyond rationale." Or stop it.
301 - 320 of 333 Posts
